Reviews for Ill Fares the Land

The average rating for Ill Fares the Land based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-03-18 00:00:00 Brandon Cocke Tony Judt is attempting to do three things here: (1)- make an argument for the virtues of "the state" in general, (2) make a more specific argument for the particular system of social democracy and (3) to "give guidance to those- the young especially- trying to articulate their objections to our way of life." He wants people of my generation (at least those of a lefty disposition) to realize all the reasons they have to be angry about things and to be WAY angrier than most of us are now. The main ideas I found interesting here: - He really really hates that so much of political conversation is framed in economic terms of profit and loss. He wants ethics back in politics. He writes in a long and involved way about the need to redefine the conversation in ethical terms, redefining what the words "value" and "efficiency" really means (the argument most often rested on by those who argue that the private sector can do everything better). He quotes a student at the beginning of the book saying that: "What is most striking about what you say is not so much substance as the form: you speak of being angry at our political quiescence; you write of the need to dissent from our economically-driven way of thinking, the urgency of a return to an ethically informed public conversation. No one talks like this anymore." He wants to change the conversation. - He spends a lot of time addressing the question: Why is there no socialism in America? I found this fascinating- he points out that before the 1970s, socialism was not a dirty word in America. From the 1940s-1970s, social democracy was actually the majority consensus. Those who wanted to take it apart in any way (such as Barry Goldwater for instance) were considered mad, self interested and generally confined to the margins. It took the baby boomer generation growing up in a world of unprecedented security and resenting the "costs" of all the social programs that had been implemented in order for the disrespect and disdain for the state to begin. It's a good reminder that there was nothing "inevitable" about socialism being derided in America- nothing in the independent pioneer spirit or anything like that. - One fascinating small point was his idea that the selfish economic spirit that came about in the 80s with Reagan and Thatcher was partially to be blamed on the individualistic movement of the 60s which focused on self-expression: "What united the '60s generation was not the interest of all, but the needs and rights of each. Individualism- the assertion of every person's claim to maximized freedom and the unrestrained liberty to express autonomous desires and have them respected and institutionalized by society at large- became the left-wing watchword of the hour. Doing 'your own thing,' 'letting it all hang out,' 'making love, not war': these are not inherently unappealing goals, but they are of their essence private objectives, not public goods... The politics of the '60s thus devolved into an aggreggation of individual claims upon society and the state." - Judt also spends a lot of time focusing on the idea that societies where people are more equal are demonstrably safer and happier societies. I found this argument somewhat troublesome because of the aspect where he essentially argues that: people are more inclined to trust each other if they feel they have a lot "in common" with them- ie, not only economic equality, but cultural and racial identity as well. He makes the uncomfortable assertion that "Frankly, the English and Dutch peoples are not much interested in sharing their social systems with their former colonial subjects." So.. basically socialism can only work in homogenous societies? He doesn't really give an answer to how this can then work in a heterogeneous, melting pot world where it is unlikely that you will find that 98% of people are of the same ethnic background. Is he saying that social democracy works best in Scandanavia because of the relatively low levels of diversity? Or just that we should substitute economic "sameness" for ethnic "sameness" in order to get that same feeling of trust? I wasn't quite sure what he was doing with this argument, but I didn't like it. - I also really liked the parts where he was trying to inspire lefties to not give up on their ideals in the face of people spitting crap about "freedom" at them. I really liked his question that, esssentially: Why is it that these free-market Republicans are all for "freedom" in the economic sphere, but when it comes to civil liberties and civil rights, their shouts about "freedom" are nowhere to be found? An oft repeated idea, but seeing it laid out in such a well supported, damning way was pretty satisfying. - He also seems to have a lot of faith in "young people," which I appreciated. He says that my generation is a new "lost generation," which needs a moral framework to inspire them to fight for something. I liked that he didn't just dismiss the young as a selfish, me-centered generation, but one that's looking for something to believe in and feeling like they get disappointed at every turn. I was also really interested by his discussion of single issue groups: the idea that so many young people who want to get involved choose organizations like Amnesty International or Greenpeace, rather than forming any kind of sweeping movement that stands for general moral principles or rebellion. Single issue groups offer clearer moral choices and are easier to work for with a clear conscience- but these single issue groups do battle with each other for attention and time rather than coalescing into a larger movement that might be able to get something done. It was an interesting way to look at these movements. Overall? I'd say the biggest flaw with this book is that I felt like a lot of his ideas could be considered rather romanticized, based on big ideas of philosophy rather than being always grounded in as many facts as they should perhaps be. For instance, he goes off on some old style Left flights of fancy- like the whole chapter he devotes to the virtues of the railroad as symbolic of modernity and an ethical collective project that binds people together. But I do think that the book serves as a good reminder of what those of a Liberal disposition stand for or should stand for, why they should be proud to stand for it, and what conversations we should really be having in this country. Since I think that the biggest problem plaguing is the absolutely horrible state of our political discourse, this book was more than worth it for me. (Here's an excerpt of the first chapter for the interested: )

Review # 2 was written on 2014-12-21 00:00:00 E.h. Koch Yawn yawn. The world is a miserable mess, billionaires are greedy, politicians do nothing because the dogma of free markets and small government is running the show, pretending private sector booms aren't just cashing out years (decades) of careful public sector investment and development. Nod nod nod. I can't figure out why Judt thinks he's so original here. he must be hanging out with the wrong crowd. He certainly isn't hanging out with the crowd I read anyway. Didn't Naomi Klein write a much less cringey (but still cringey) critique of 'identity politics' in No Logo? Seriously Tony, if you're going to complain about 'political correctness' 'relativism' 'excessive influence of special interests' 'narcissism' etc don't count on my vote. No matter how 'moral' the frustrated young folk you are addressing are in their approach to politics, they will have to do better than this. When you compare gated communities to African American Studies courses you are talking ahistorical assimilationist caca. Early on, talking about the benefits of social democracy (for which he thanks Keynes, extensively), Judt states that people trust each other more in ethnically homogenous countries (the data he uses comes, I think, from Wilkinson and Pickett's book The Spirit Level) and those with 'little anxiety about immigration' I was a little concerned that he left that hanging, but I waited patiently for him to return to this point in his 'What is to be Done?' chapters. I waited and waited! And he didn't come back to it, so we have to conclude that diversity is the problem, and it's immigration that destroys trust. Careless. Or he really means that. Oh the politicians of today. Pygmies! Not like Churchill! I wish I was irresponsibly satirizing, but I'm not, just condensing what he actually said. It gets my goat that I agree with him about many things. Yes, mixed economies work quite well. Yes, welfare is a good thing and governments need to stop stripping it away. Yes, the NHS is totally awesome. Yes it would be horrible if supermarkets were run by the state. Yes, Margaret Thatcher screwed us all. Too bloody right we need more economic equality. This makes me think that I might be voting for one of those white guys who comment on blog posts and articles saying 'forget about race, it's all about class' or 'it's sad that you feel this way. We're all just human' *shudder*